With
which group do I identify? It’s the educated proletarian. This
person is admittedly not one of the more attractive identity types.
He has aspirations to status while being, in fact, a rather marginal
character.

Our
national goal has become to send everyone to college who wants to
attend. However, the goal of universal education defeats
the original purpose of
going to college. If elevation into a higher class was that purpose, then
even a dummy can figure out that putting everyone into such a
position is a meaningless exercise. Not everyone can find a career
in an elite occupation.
Not every child can become a lawyer or doctor or President of the United
States, or, in Garrison Keillor’s words, be “above average”.

We
have enough doctors and lawyers; what this community needs is people
to prepare meals, fixing broken plumbing, and do other kinds of unglamorous
work. It’s impractical for everyone to be economically and socially “at
the top”. So let’s dispense with this hierarchical scheme
of occupations, and with the selective judgments of educational gatekeepers,
and exercise common sense. While it may no longer be possible
to prepare everyone for nice white-collar jobs that pay well and have
prestige, we do need a system of education and career placement that
leaves
everyone
in a good place. Everyone deserves an adequate wage and a sound personal
identity.

If
America is hurting today, it may be that its society suffers from
a lack of community. Our citizens are not satisfied to deal with
each
other
as equals;
we each want to be better than the other person. The theme of upward
mobility relative to others is built into the concept of our nation
being a “land
of opportunity”. We think that is what it means to be an American:
I am one of the “winners”.

This
is a society built on quicksand which has started to sink; better
seek higher ground while it’s
still possible. Not only do we need to demystify our occupations
and free them from staggering educational requirements, we
also need to find models of personality that will allow all people
in the community to live in harmony. We need to promote identities
that allow mutual
respect. We need a revolution in attitudes where we can be proud
of ourselves without having to think we are better than someone else.

Let’s
start with the models of identity furnished in American history.
Each represents a “hero” to certain kinds of people.
Each model of personality inspires someone to mutter to himself: “I
want to be like him.” Now, of course, women and men, girls
and boys, will likely choose a different role model for their gender.
The types of heroic personality
discussed in the previous chapter do leave room for both sexes,
and for various races and ethnicities as well. They are, however,
specific
to particular
periods of time. Today we are living in different conditions. Although
history furnishes certain heroes, we need to find an identities
appropriate to the
present time.

Here’s
another question, then. What history should be taught in schools?
What identity found in history is
suitable for everyone to study? Ideally,
schoolchildren should have a range of models so they individually
can pick what suits or interests them. There should be no limit
on the kinds of candidates
considered eligible to inspire positive identity. There should
be no attempt to force students to accept a particular one.

On
the other hand, I would also argue that attention needs to be given
to the type of hero proposed for the class. If he is
a hero
because
he defeats
someone, then he cannot be a hero to the person who was defeated
or to types of people identifying with that person, some of
whom may sit
in
the class.
This becomes relevant when demographic politics tries to control
the content of history courses. I would prefer a hero who is
heroic for
contributions not to a race or ethnicity but to the entire
human race. His identity
should
stand on its own merit, not in opposition to someone else.

avoid
moral dualism

Looking
at some types of American identity discussed in the previous chapter,
one sees that their identities often depended on being better than
someone else. The righteous Pilgrims saw themselves as being in opposition
to the corrupt Church of England. The proponents of American democracy
saw themselves in opposition to the feudal order in Europe. The western
frontiersman was seen as being unlike the effete people who lived
on the east coast. His triumph came at the expense of Indian peoples.
In other words, to put themselves in a positive light, these types
of Americans needed a negative contrast. Instead of feeling proud
of themselves for what they accomplished in and by themselves, they
acquired attractive identities through comparison with the unattractive
identities of others.

This
model of personal attractiveness may be rooted in dualistic conceptions
of the Old Testament. Persons schooled
in Judaic religion are familiar with
the story of how Moses confronted Pharaoh and, with God’s help, inflicted
numerous plagues upon his domain before leading the Israelites out of Egypt
to the promised land. They are also familiar with the story of David
slaying the giant Goliath with a sling. Both were “underdog” victors.

Moses
and David were the “good” characters in the story; their
adversaries, Pharaoh and Goliath, are the “bad” characters.
A positive identity is created for Moses and David when, with great courage
and faith, they confront their fearsome adversaries and defeat them.
By this
model, each winner in a contest must have a counterpart in someone who
is defeated. If the loser previously seemed to possessed great physical
or material
strength, so much greater must be the spiritual strength of the winner.

So,
through our choice of hero-making stories, we rather ungraciously
size up other people to see if they will take the fall for our own
positive identities. This may be an attitude of young people who
are on the make
more than of
mature persons. 19th Century America was young and brash. We were quick
to trumpet our superiority over other societies and their kinds of
people. This
created our American identity types.

The
U.S. Civil War created a problem because our nation was morally divided.
Northerners and southerners
both saw themselves as being better
than
the other side. They each fought a bloody war over their principles.
In the
end, the northern “Goliath” won. This unseemly victory
was redeemed, however, by the blood of a martyred President and the
abolition of slavery.
The underdog South clung to the glory of an earlier model, having
held the North at bay despite its material advantages.

Of
the more recent models, I would say that the contentious dualism
is most evident in the identities of the labor-union member and
of the Civil
Rights
activist. The union member’s identity is set in opposition
to his employer. The Civil Rights activist opposed the evils of
racial segregation in the
southern states. His enemy was racist white people and groups such
as the Ku Klux Klan that espoused white supremacy.

The
least dualistic model, I would say, is that of the industrialist-inventor.
By his
inventiveness and business ability, he created new products
and wealth that benefited the entire society. Even if Ford’s
automobile put manufacturers of horses and buggies out of business,
that was not the spirit of his enterprise.
His story was one of progress benefiting everyone.

The
irony is that historians have tended to be more critical of this
type
of person than of those who were morally confrontational.
For
example, while Andrew Carnegie developed new ways of making
steel, his company
also
experienced
bitter strikes with its workers. While Henry Ford pioneered
the assembly line, his business, too, was troubled by labor relations.
Additionally,
Ford has been accused of anti-Semitism because his company-sponsored
publications criticized Jewish bankers.

What
of the remaining models?

With
respect to dualism, the immigrant farmer who lived in the midwest
a century ago was conscious both of the country that he had left
behind and of the one where he now lived. There may have been a lingering
cultural attachment to the Old World combined with an appreciation
of the economic and social advantages of living in the United States.
Each ethnic group also compared itself with other groups, either
disparaging the others or taking pride in its own cultural attainments.
The Swedes and Norwegians both felt they were superior to the other.
The Germans had a special appreciation for their culture before the
German reputation was trashed in two world wars.

The
organization man was not much interested in culture. He wanted instead
to be promoted
by his employer and willingly conformed to the employer’s
norms. Both parties were satisfied with that arrangement. Yet, this virtue
of conforming to a corporate culture is seen in a negative light by some
who believe it violates individual freedom. The term, “organization
man”, is considered pejorative.

Similarly,
the entertainer and his fans have a positive relationship. Negativity,
to the extent it
exists, may be directed against competing modes of expression.
One may like classical music but not rock ‘n roll; or dislike classical
music and be a fan of country western songs. With respect to professional
sports, one can root for the Boston Red Sox and hope the New York Yankees
lose. Because this is a game, the antagonistic
feelings engendered by the competition are pseudo animosities rather
than real ones. Who can feel truly angry when people are having fun?

Of
the preceding models, the most divisive type of identity, in my view,
is that of the Civil Rights activist fighting against white racists.
Originally this was a struggle for social advancement by black people
in the south
who lived in a disadvantageous segregated society. The racial opposition
was
clear, both morally and politically, even though many whites, especially
in the north, also supported the struggle. The Civil Rights movement
achieved a stunning political victory. Its dualistic value system became
accepted
by the establishment. Now almost a civic religion, it has changed into
something else.

the
anti-white coalition

The
Civil Rights movement changed when other groups of people used it
as a model for their own demographic struggle.
Feminist women
saw females
as a group oppressed by males, not unlike the southern blacks.
American Indians
followed the Civil Rights model in protesting the white man’s
seizure of their land and suppression of their culture. Then came
gays and lesbians
protesting anti-gay discrimination in straight society. Immigrant
groups today have cast their struggle against discrimination and
for amnesty in
terms of a Civil Rights-type struggle.

The
upshot was that we have today many different groups - perhaps a majority
of the U.S. population
- all claiming to be oppressed
by American
society.
Who is the oppressor? One could reasonably argue that it is the
U.S. Government and perhaps certain other powerful institutions
such as
in the business
sector. However, since the nation’s political and business
leaders have also supported the ethic of the Civil Rights movement
including preferential programs for women and minorities,
it was politically unwise to argue that they were the oppressor.
Instead, it became
the type of person
who typically led those institutions - namely, white males. The
blame for the real or imagined oppression of the various peoples
within the Civil Rights
coalition was thus shifted from the particular individuals in
positions
of power to the demographic types that they represented.

Now,
we have, in effect, condensed all this into a morality
tale in which white America becomes a villain against which
all these brave
peoples
are struggling to achieve social justice. Notice that it is
not the U.S. government but white America. Our society is guilty
of institutional
racism. White people are inherently racist. White men are also
sexist. The power
structure of this society is rotten at its core; and only those
who oppose
the society can be considered virtuous.

No
longer can Americans feel proud of themselves and of their country.
The new histories
taught in school are books like
Howard Zinn’s A People’s
History of the United States that tell of the evils attending
Columbus’ "discovery"
of America, how George Washington owned slaves, and the white
man massacred American Indians; the heroes were Martin Luther
King and others who challenged
the racist society that we have in America.

Now,
of course, there is truth in many of those histories that reveal
the
bad things about America. But is that the
whole
story? What about
the bad
things done by other people? Were there some good things
(besides, of course, the Civil Rights movement) that happened
in America?
Yes there
were, but
that story has not been told. The political partisans who
are writing our histories seem uninterested in such events.

I
am thinking, for instance, of the revolution in transportation taking
place at the beginning of the 20th century that
saw the birth of both
the automobile
and aviation industries. I am thinking of how factories
in Detroit became the “arsenal of democracy” that
defeated Nazi Germany. Talented, dedicated leaders of
business, labor, government, and the military effectively
reorganized industry to produce arms and then converted
back to civilian production after the war. It went smoothly
so you never hear about this.
Even the great effort that it took to send men to the
Moon
has not received the reporting it deserves. There were
plenty of unsung heroes in that enterprise.

As
a white man who has never possessed much power, I object to the
association of America’s ills with the “powerful” white
race. To a large extent, I agree with criticisms relating
to policies or structures
that govern our society. However, this criticism should
be leveled at the government rather than a race of
people. It should be leveled at the particular
leaders in government who caused those things to happen,
not persons born into a race.

The
American government has made plenty of mistakes. We have stumbled
into
ill-advised wars. Our elected
officials have
effectively been
bribed by
special interests, including pharmaceutical companies
and
financial institutions on Wall Street. Due to our
national trade policies,
we have lost much
of our manufacturing base. A real opposition could
emerge between the American
government and the American people. But it does not
because we are preoccupied with race and other other
types of
division that
have
arisen from the
Civil Rights movement.

Normally
social and political movements bring blow-back and a balance is struck
between contending
groups.
In this case,
however,
the
Civil Rights
movement has achieved a total victory. Afraid
of being called “racist”,
white people dare not defend themselves as a racial
group. The politicized black minority has succeeded
in foisting its story on the majority. The society
becomes tainted with a belief in its evil
nature. Since the citizens
of any normally healthy society must believe that
their society is good (even if the government occasionally
goes astray), this belief creates a moral
contradiction.

That’s what’s happening
now in America. We’re confused
and weak. All signs point to continued decline.